Now, why would Hamas be going out of its way to complain about Israel allegedly bombing a Sudanese arms factory? And why would Israel do it in the first place (assuming it was actually the Israelis)? Perhaps this answers both questions:

Sudanese sources told the BBC that the arms factory was believed to have been operated by the Iranians.
BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the factory is thought to have manufactured rockets and other munitions for Iran to transfer weapons to Hamas by an overland route.
The Israelis believe there is a well-used smuggling route running northwards to Egypt, into Sinai and then on to the Gaza Strip.
Leaked US state department documents three years ago also suggested that Sudan was secretly supplying Iranian arms to Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

There have been a number of conflicting stories about what type of armaments, in particular, were being assembled at the plant. The one thing that appears to be clear, however, is that at least some of the armaments, of whatever nature, were being shipped to the Gaza Strip so Hamas and its allied groups could continue targeting Israeli civilians with them.

Fast and loose with the facts, as usual, Destro. The right wing was not upset with Pres. Clinton because the factory was later claimed by the Sudanese to be an aspirin plant. To the contrary, most of the criticism directed against Pres. Clinton at the time stemmed from the very convenient timing of the strike (see, e.g., Monica Lewinsky). Also, not all neo-cons opposed the strike or President Clinton's failed attempt to kill Osama bin Laden using cruise missiles (would that his timing was different by only a few hours).

With respect to your last question, the answer is simple. I put the information out there, and people can choose to agree or disagree based upon the substance of what I write and whether I can support my views honestly, objectively and factually. Those who have an honest disagreement and can back up their views honestly, objectively and factually are welcome to do so. They have and will continue to help inform and shape my own views.

Finally, as for whether my prescriptions on foreign affairs have been accurate or inaccurate "in decades", a matter as to which I am confident you have no actual knowledge, I am quite comfortable with my track record when it comes to analysis and prognostications on Middle Eastern affairs over the past 30 years. I am equally certain that the rhetoric you reflexively spew on the subject will not stand the test of time.

To the contrary, most of the criticism directed against Pres. Clinton at the time stemmed from the very convenient timing of the strike (see, e.g., Monica Lewinsky)

No, that was the trick the GOP used to make sure no one rallied around the president during a dangerous overseas military endeavor.

Yes, keep pushing the notion that the neocons you flak for have gotten foreign policy right. You are foreign policy FAILURES. Just like lowering taxes and deregulation did not cause the economy to grow. All fallacies we have been fed for decades that collapsed around us.

But the true believes keep on keeping on as if their policies worked. Stay classy, right wingers.

To the contrary, most of the criticism directed against Pres. Clinton at the time stemmed from the very convenient timing of the strike (see, e.g., Monica Lewinsky)

No, that was the trick the GOP used to make sure no one rallied around the president during a dangerous overseas military endeavor.

I am not sure what you are referring to. Do you mean that Monica Lewinsky was a set-up directed by the GOP against President Clinton or that the accusation that the timing of the strike was "convenient" was designed to prevent people from rallying around the president during a dangerous overseas military endeavor? If the former, please seek professional help. If the latter, your assertion is, to say the least, factually challenged. For starters, the GOP hacks attacked Clinton for the timing of the attack before without regard to (and even before) the Sudanese claim that the plant was an aspirin factory. Second, there was no "dangerous overseas military endeavor" involved; the plant was bombed by cruise missiles fired by one or more US Navy submarines.

But, again, we should trust your knee jerk and ad hominem generalities rather than those who have command of actual facts. Right?

Oh, well. Time to stop playing. You may have the sandbox to yourself for a while.

McCain singing "Bomb Iran"? That's your idea of being a smartass? I would've gone with "America (F*** Yeah)" if I were you.

As for this discussion, its not impressive. Are you arguing against strikes on Sudanese weapon factories/warehouses/etc because over a decade ago, something something, Clinton's sex scandal, etc.? Really? Nothing about potential escalation, retaliation, or other blow-back? Nothing about civilian lives, human rights, international law? Nothing relevant to today? You're going with Monica Lewinsky? Weak, Destro. Very weak.